Contingency and the Rise of Islam

[TimCallahan]

While I think that history does follow certain broad patterns, making its course potentially predictable (though more often in hindsight), we shouldn't ignore the influence of pure chance on its course. I'm thinking here of the late Stephen Jay Gould's dictum from his book Wonderful Life, that if we were to rewind the tape and play it again, the history of life might well be entirely different than what it was, owing entirely to chance. While Gould was thinking of the tape of geologic time, I think his observation works as well in the much narrower confines of human history.

One of the more striking examples of the impact of chance, I think, is the rapid series of military conquests that spread Islam from the Arabian peninsula to the Iberian peninsula, North Africa, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and Persia within about a century after the death of Mohammad.

Often, the proctioners of a given religion will point to such triumphs as a sign of the divine origins of their particular faith, as in how Christianity went from a minor sect to the state religion of the Roman Empire in a few centuries. I don't know if Muslims have used the meteoric spread o Islam, the fact that their armies seemed unstopable, as such a sign, but they might well do so.

However it was a devastating war that was hardly inevitable that was the secret behind the Muslim military successes that spread Islam was so far so fast. This was a 20 year war between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Persian Empire that so weakened both that they were totally powerless against the armies of the Prophet on fire with religious zeal. The way it began was that the Eastern Roman emperor, Maurice, had helped the Persian king Chosroes regain his throne when he had been depose by his rebelions nobles. The price of Maurice's assistence was thatthe Persians give up any control of Armenia, over which the two empires had haggled in a series of minor wars for some time. When Maurice was murdeered in a coup and replace by an icompetant soldier, Chosroes invaded the Byzantine Empire on the pretext of avenging his erstwhile benefactor. However, his ambitions went far beyond merely regaining Armenia. He eventually overran Syria, the Levant and Egypt.

Eventually, a competant emperor named Heraclitus came to the Byzntine throne. Seeing it was a waste to try to drive the Persian armies out of all the occupied territories, he instead invaded Persia directly via the Caucasus region. Since the Persain armies were dispersed through all the territories they had occupied, Chosroes was unable to defend the Persian homeland, and his fickle nobles murdered him and sued for peace. However, it took some time for the Persian armies to be etracted from all the territories, and Heraclitus had barely regained control of those provinces when Islam erupted out of Arabia.

The Muslim armies then faced two once formidible empires, now weakened and militarily stretched thin. The Byzantine Empire was exhasted, and the Persians were n a state of near anarchy. Thus the mMuslim armies were all but invincible.

Had Maurice either not been murdered or had his replacement been competant, the Persian invasion wouldn't have happened or would have been blunted. For that matter, had Chosroes' ambitions been a bit less extreme and more prudent, a short war resulting in the transfer of Armenia back to the Persians would have still left two strong empires to face the Muslim advance. Islam would have been a minor regional form of montheism limited to the Arabian peninsula, and Zorastrianism wold have been one of world's major religions.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Your post reads like you were there. Not that I dispute anything you've written (just yet)but what are your sources?

 

[TimCallahan]

One of the best is the Penguin Atlas of Medieval History by Colin McEvedy. Aonother is volume 1 of A Military History of the Western World by J. F. C. Fuller. He says of the state of the Byzantines and Persians following their long war (p. 331):

Thus, at the very moment when a new invader mobilized in the south, the two great empires in the East lay exhausted; their terretories ravaged, their man-power wasted, their wealth gone; they were vacuums ready to be filled by the followers of the Prophet.

One caution with respect to Fuller is that he is a good historian for what happened before the twentieth century. However, he was a Russiphobe, anti-Semitic and had a not-surprising soft spot for fascism. The middle ages, however were far enough from his political bias that he's a reasonable source for the military history of that period.

One correction I must add to my first post: The Byzantine emperor's name was not Heraclitus, but Heraclius. Also, the Chosroes was Chosroes II. He launched his invasion in 602 and was assassinated in 628, making the war 26 years long, rather than 20.

 

[Jungle Jim]

While I think the topic of the OP is quite interesting and worthy of discussion, the way you have framed the debate is questionable. You (not you so much as your sources) make several assertions (see my bolded text below) for which the OP relies on that can most generously be described as educated guesses. As an aside, when typing a post, red lines appear under misspelled words. Take a few minutes to correct them.

When Maurice was murdeered in a coup and replace by an icompetant soldier, Chosroes invaded the Byzantine Empire on the pretext of avenging his erstwhile benefactor. However, his ambitions went far beyond merely regaining Armenia. He eventually overran Syria, the Levant and Egypt.

Eventually, a competant emperor named Heraclitus came to the Byzntine throne. Seeing it was a waste to try to drive the Persian armies out of all the occupied territories, he instead invaded Persia directly via the Caucasus region. Since the Persain armies were dispersed through all the territories they had occupied, Chosroes was unable to defend the Persian homeland, and his fickle nobles murdered him and sued for peace. However, it took some time for the Persian armies to be etracted from all the territories, and Heraclitus had barely regained control of those provinces when Islam erupted out of Arabia.

The Muslim armies then faced two once formidible empires, now weakened and militarily stretched thin. The Byzantine Empire was exhasted, and the Persians were n a state of near anarchy. Thus the mMuslim armies were all but invincible.

Had Maurice either not been murdered or had his replacement been competant, the Persian invasion wouldn't have happened or would have been blunted. For that matter, had Chosroes' ambitions been a bit less extreme and more prudent, a short war resulting in the transfer of Armenia back to the Persians would have still left two strong empires to face the Muslim advance. Islam would have been a minor regional form of montheism limited to the Arabian peninsula, and Zorastrianism wold have been one of world's major religions.

 

[TimCallahan]

While I think the topic of the OP is quite interesting and worthy of discussion, the way you have framed the debate is questionable. You (not you so much as your sources) make several assertions (see my bolded text below) for which the OP relies on that can most generously be described as educated guesses. As an aside, when typing a post, red lines appear under misspelled words. Take a few minutes to correct them.

I haven't noticed the red lines so far. Your point about my passing value judgments is well taken. I'll keep it in mind in further posts.

As to the role of contingency in the rise of Islam, it goes even deeper and wider than the situation at the end of the 20+ year conflict between the two empires. After some initial military success the fledgling Muslim community was dealt a setback in the Battle of Uhud, in which the Muslims, based in Medina, were defeated by the Qaraysh, Mohammad's own tribe, based in Mecca. The Prophet was wounded and left behind on the battlefield as his routed forces fled toward Medina. The Qaraysh, satisfied at having routed Mohammad's army, returned home without following up on their victory. Had they killed Mohammad, of course, Islam would have died with him. Even had they pursued their defeated enemies they might have dealt the movement a fatal blow.

At this point, I should add a note of caution. The information we have about Mohammad's life, including his date of birth, his age at, and the circumstances of, his initial revelation, as well as his political and military history, are exclusively from Islamic sources; and his earliest biography was written about a century after his death. Thus, the possibilities of his life being romanticized and mythologized are quite high.

 

[TimCallahan]

Once the forces of Islam had conquered North Africa they would have been somewhat spent, except for the conversion of the Berbers, or Moors. This gave them a new amy of zealots, although many in the vanguard were as interested in booty as in spreading the word. Chance again favored Islam as the Muslims prepared to invade Visigothic Spain. Julian, governor of Ceuta on the southern shore of the Straits of Gibralter, agreed to ferry the Moorish army across the strait because Rodrigo, the Visigothic king of Spain, had raped his daughter. Another bit of chance was that the Muslims invaded the Iberian peninsula at a time when the governments in western Europe were weak, and their power fragmented by independent-minded vassals.

The entire Iberian peninsula was essentially delivered to Isalm in a single battle at Medina Sidonia in 711. This was accomplished by a Moorish army of only about 7,000 (Julian only had four ships to put at the disposal of the Moors), aided by some treachery in Rodrigo's army. This led eventually to the invasion of the Frankish kingdom.

Like the Visigothic kingdom, the Frankish kingdom was weak and disorganized. Fortunately for the Franks, they had an able leader in Charles Martel. He led them to victory over the Muslims at the Battle of Tours in 731. Some historians dismiss this battle as a mere skirmish. However considering the small size of the army that conquered Spain, it seems likely that a victory at Tours would have delivered France as well to the Muslims.

Certainly the forces of Islam could have mounted another assualt on France. However, chance once again seems to have intervened. In 749 the Umayyad Caliphate was overthrown by the Abbasids. The Umayyads did, however hold on to the Iberian peninsula. Their attention was now focused on their enemies across the strait, and they did not have the resources to mount a new invasion against the rest of Europe. Had the Abbasids conquered Spain, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, they might well have invaded and conquered France.

 

[Hux]

The Saudi Peninsula was pissed off with the peoples of the book and wanted their own revelation - in Arabic.

Along comes big Mo' with a revelation. Extremely timely that one.

If Mo' had been killed in one of the many two bit robbing and rape skirmishes he used to joyously frequent, Islam probably would never have taken off - given that it had to be enforced. (In that sense nothing changes)